Originally Posted by Tensor
His thesis was published with another article by Wheeler, lauding the thesis. There wasn't enough time for him to decide his idea was being ignored, Dewitt hadn't made his objections known (or Everette's answers to Dewitt's objections) and a over a full year before Everette met with Bohr.
So he was working with the military, and chose to stay with the military, before any kind of serious negative objections to his paper. Now I will agree that the reaction to his paper MAY have had something to do with his decision to continue with the military, after 1959. But by then, he was writing some of the highest level documents for the military and also in the process of setting up the first of some very lucrative private companies, involved with advising the military. So, it again, MAY, have been just one of many factors.
And if you think string theory is ridiculous, explain how a zero dimensional object can act as if itís spinning? Or, contain any kind of mass. Itís because it can be, in the context of some of our current models, be considered a point particle. That, however, doesnít mean it is a point particle in all models or even in reality.
All youíve done is set up a group of strawmen, then attacked those strawmen. I suppose that is what strawmen are for, but the only valid objection youíve pointed out is that it hasnít made any valid predictions that are different from current predictions. I would have thought you would have brought up the lack of background independence. However, there is the little matter of the compatibility of String Theory and AdS/CFT correspondence that you seem to havenít mentioned.
In previous posts, you berate mainstream scientists for having closed minds, and yet, here you are, objecting to Superstring Theory. I could understand it if you were making well designed objections. But, you seem to be basing your objections on strawmen, not to mention making obvious errors about what exactly Superstring Theory claims. So, you seem, to me at least, to be making you decision based on strawmen and analogies, not on the acutal math.
As I said, Iím not overly fond of String Theory, and I think that Loop Quantum Gravity is a better way. However, I am aware of the successes and progress that Superstring Theory has made. And, understand why others think it has possibilities. Until we get a clear and obvious contradiction in either the mathematics of String Theory or a prediction that, even though we cant verify the prediction directly, contradicts a current observation, there really isnít a reason to object to String Theory.